Keiran Loveridge (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

Sentencing and incarceration policies should be determined entirely by professional criminologists based on current best academic practice, formally independent of the will of politicians, the public, or victims of crime, while informally considering the interests of those groups as part of a whole gamut of interests to be considered.

 

[ilikecats]

Really hard for me not to go on some long rant about everything and try to remain impartial so...

I think the real issue that needs to be addressed is the fact alcohol is so accepted as a part of our lives that being drunk is used as a defence in situations. Everybody knows you drink, you get drunk and you do stupid things. At the end of the day we desperately need a cultural shift away from alcohol because so many issues seem to stem back to them.

Secondly, I think the judge, as the person most qualified to hand down this sentence, did the right thing. Yes 6 years on manslaughter isn't the same as 6 for murder, and yes it probably is quite light considering it wasn't his first offence of this nature. At the end of all this nothing will ever bring Tom back and that is something Tom's family and friends will always struggle to accept. I sincerely and utterly hope Tom's killer is genuinely remorseful, and that his time in gaol and once he is released he realises the consequences of his actions and ensures he changes himself to make his life better.

The media has had an absolute field day with this and it drives me insane. It makes it very hard for everybody to move on when there are so many people who everyday have to look at the television or the newspaper and see the media almost sensationalising this. Tom is not the first, and probably wont be the last to die in these circumstances; If his death means that people stop and think and we have this sorts of concious and lively debates about what the hell is wrong with our society than I am all for it. It's amazing to think for such a quite, shy guy his parents are so ridiculously determined to keep this in the spotlight. If the message gets through to just a handful, then the message is out there.


Again, hopefully that isn't to rant-ish and isn't too personal but when I come on here I didn't expect to see this sort of discussion and I was pleasantly surprised? I even had to remember my password to log back in. Darn you all

 

[nerdasdasd]

I guess everything got settled in the end

 

[Spiritual Bean]

I'm not bothered to continue to do the quoting thing so I'll finish it with this.

You continue to tell me about how I know nothing about the balance, yet all you have spoken about how much of an injustice this is. You clearly have a strong preference towards the victim. Your argument is well grounded but how about some more balanced perspective, such as that of offender and society. The response of the offender is just as important to justice as the response of the victim is. Showing remorse- as determined the best we can (subject to your own opinion)- is grounds to reduce a sentence. Whether you accept that or not as based on your perceptions of professional psychologists, the matter is that is how it works. If you have better suggestions for how to determine remorse I highly suggest you go forwards and try to change the system because it will be for the better.

I do know nothing about what you deal with or what you do. Neither do you about me. Which is why I trust our criminal justice system- which isn't perfect by any means- to decide the punishment. Appeals are set in place to ensure greater justice is achieved for all. Whether a slight increase is an injustice is a matter of opinion. Something you don't seem to comprehend. I don't advocate the importance of injustice- because in my opinion justice will be served if he serves a considerable amount of jail time and comes out a better person.

You are a highly intellectual person but your personal criticisms of my opinion based on the fact that I tutor legal studies is as baseless is mine stating that your a 17 year old student who would have no idea how much rehab would be needed. I said it so you would realize that opinions differ but that doesn't mean they are illogical, wrong, or an injustice to the debate because as you have said it all is a matter of perspective.
I thank you for the discussion and will probably talk to you again about this when the appeal is heard.

I am going to reorganise the chronology of my response relative to what you stated because it is important to lay foreground before any assertion of substance is constructed. A valid debate is one where subjective assertions are contextualised through ascertaining their credence based on qualified background. Needless to say, since we are a collection of school and university students, this does not need to be unnecessarily extended to this debate, only where applicable. In this applicable sense, when an individual tutors legal studies, it brings one to believe that they are, more than likely, and hopefully, knowledgeable of the legal studies syllabus. As I said, justice is a subjective term individualised to perception. In the notion of amalgamating the competing interests of the offender, victim and society, the victim (expressed through the family) is objectively clear about justice, that is, they believe the offender should have gotten more than his sentence of five years and two months (non-parole period). As megalomaniac as we may be, we cannot authoritatively impose our own perceptions of what the victim feels is justice. It is objective. It is clear. As I hope you are aware, pursuant to S.21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 expresses the requirement to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances proportionately, which has, beyond dispute, not been done. I say 'beyond dispute' because the family is obviously not satisfied, which by default, constitutes an imbalanced consideration of the competing rights. In this sense of imbalance, it is necessary to exemplify your background knowledge of legal studies, and why you have not responded accordingly is almost inconceivable considering that the 'balance' argument is one of complete objectivity, not subjectivity. It is not a matter of opinion, when the victims interest is so blatantly ignored and rehabilitation is given unnecessary (unlawful) centrality.

As Crobat underpinned, an effective balance between the offender, victim and society needs to be reflected in the sentencing of an individual. We can look at Australia where someone can kill and stay in prison for just over a period of five years, and we can look at America where juveniles are being direct filed to the adult court and serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, for a crime they did not commit, due to the felony murder statute. Either extremity is problematic. There has been an argument circling regarding five years being a very long time. I mean, sure, five years ago I was twelve. If I thus apply that assertion subjectively, I can only agree that five years is a long time. However, as I said before, an assertion requires contextualisation to ascertain its validity. Loveridge is an adult. He is past the developmental age. Analogous to how it is societally acceptable for marriage to occur with a ten year age discrepancy, only when the couple are in ages of maturity, but not at ten and twenty. We had a ticking time bomb walking the streets injuring several people and killing one, all in a single night. It is possible that Loveridge will be rehabilitated in five years, but it's not probable, and that it is a critical distinction. There is a quantum leap between possibility and probability. It is possible that a meteorite will come over this Earth and kill us all in five seconds, but it is not probable. Thus, a plausible, and the only conceivable way to increase the probability of his rehabilitation is to increase the severity (time) of his sentence. That will bring us to an additional few years, and in amalgamating that increase, and being statutorily compliant to keep a balance, the sentence must additionally be increased on the basis of the victim's rights. In considering this totality, it is only appropriate to significantly increase the time of Loveridge's sentence, and eliminate this injustice of largely and with centrality, only considering rehabilitation in his initial sentence.

 

[nerdasdasd]

i am going to reorganise the chronology of my response relative to what you stated because it is important to lay foreground before any assertion of substance is constructed. A valid debate is one where subjective assertions are contextualised through ascertaining their credence based on qualified background. Needless to say, since we are a collection of school and university students, this does not need to be unnecessarily extended to this debate, only where applicable. In this applicable sense, when an individual tutors legal studies, it brings one to believe that they are, more than likely, and hopefully, knowledgeable of the legal studies syllabus. As i said, justice is a subjective term individualised to perception. In the notion of amalgamating the competing interests of the offender, victim and society, the victim (expressed through the family) is objectively clear about justice, that is, they believe the offender should have gotten more than his sentence of five years and two months (non-parole period). As megalomaniac as we may be, we cannot authoritatively impose our own perceptions of what the victim feels is justice. It is objective. It is clear. As i hope you are aware, pursuant to s.21a of the crimes (sentencing procedure) act 1999 expresses the requirement to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances proportionately, which has, beyond dispute, not been done. I say 'beyond dispute' because the family is obviously not satisfied, which by default, constitutes an imbalanced consideration of the competing rights. In this sense of imbalance, it is necessary to exemplify your background knowledge of legal studies, and why you have not responded accordingly is almost inconceivable considering that the 'balance' argument is one of complete objectivity, not subjectivity. It is not a matter of opinion, when the victims interest is so blatantly ignored and rehabilitation is given unnecessary centrality.

As crobat underpinned, an effective balance between the offender, victim and society needs to be reflected in the sentencing of an individual. We can look at australia where someone can kill and stay in prison for just over a period of five years, and we can look at america where juveniles are being direct filed to the adult court and serving life in prison without the possibility of parole, for a crime they did not commit, due to the felony murder statute. Either extremity is problematic. There has been an argument circling regarding five years being a very long time. I mean, sure, five years ago i was twelve. If i thus apply that assertion subjectively, i can only agree that five years is a long time. However, as i said before, an assertion requires contextualisation to ascertain its validity. Loveridge is an adult. He is past the developmental age. Analogous to how it is societally acceptable for marriage to occur with a ten year age discrepancy, only when the couple are in ages of maturity, but not at ten and twenty. We had a ticking time bomb walking the streets injuring several people and killing one, all in a single night. It is possible that loveridge will be rehabilitated in five years, but it's not probable, and that it is a critical distinction. There is a quantum leap between possibility and probability. It is possible that a meteorite will come over this earth and kill us all in five seconds, but it is not probable. Thus, a plausible, and only conceivable way to increase the probability of his rehabilitation is to increase the severity (time) of his sentence. That will bring us to an additional few years, and in amalgamating that increase, and being statutorily compliant to keep a balance, the sentence must additionally be increased on the basis of the victim's rights. In considering this totality, it is only appropriate to significantly increase the time of loveridge's sentence, and eliminate this injustice of largely and with centrality, only considering rehabilitation in his initial sentence.

smackdown woo!

 

[Crobat]

As I hope you are aware, pursuant to S.21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 expresses the requirement to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances proportionately, which has, beyond dispute, not been done. I say 'beyond dispute' because the family is obviously not satisfied, which by default, constitutes an imbalanced consideration of the competing rights.

I agree with everything you have said except this part. If you read through the Justice's comments, he has balanced the aggravating and mitigating circumstances proportionally in line with the requirements of the Act. The fact that the family is satisfied or unsatisfied bears no weight on the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and should bear no weight either because as you (and Justice Campbell) have highlighted, the law is required to be objective, and how one might feel about the sentence is a subjective matter. I wouldn't hesitate to say that even life sentences/death penalties don't necessarily guarantee the victim(s) would be satisfied just because they received the full penalty within the law - the ramifications they have to live with will be timeless and unimaginably enduring and the punishment of the offender does not always mean a cease to the pain they suffer.

As I said, the issue is in the fact the Justice came to his decision, a correct decision in line with what the legislation provides, is inadequate for the seriousness of the crime, and that Parliament needs to respond to this inadequacy with reform.

 

[Graney]

I am going to reorganise the chronology of my response relative to what you stated because it is important to lay foreground before any assertion of substance is constructed. A valid debate is one where subjective assertions are contextualised through ascertaining their credence based on qualified background. Needless to say, since we are a collection of school and university students, this does not need to be unnecessarily extended to this debate, only where applicable. In this applicable sense, when an individual tutors legal studies, it brings one to believe that they are, more than likely, and hopefully, knowledgeable of the legal studies syllabus.

Most pretentious waffle ever read.

As I hope you are aware, pursuant to S.21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 expresses the requirement to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances proportionately, which has, beyond dispute, not been done.

Could easily be disputed.

I say 'beyond dispute' because the family is obviously not satisfied

'requirement to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances', does not mean 'victims family must be satisfied'. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances can be considered, and the victims family can be unsatisfied with the outcome, it is possible for both these conditions to be true simultaneously.

In this sense of imbalance, it is necessary to exemplify your background knowledge of legal studies, and why you have not responded accordingly is almost inconceivable considering that the 'balance' argument is one of complete objectivity, not subjectivity.

lol wankiest and pretentious waffle ever read

Loveridge is an adult. He is past the developmental age.

"According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. (See J. Giedd in References.)"

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

It is possible that Loveridge will be rehabilitated in five years, but it's not probable

What do you base this claim on?

Rhetorical question, I'm 100% sure you just made it up, sourced from your butt.

Thus, a plausible, and the only conceivable way to increase the probability of his rehabilitation is to increase the severity (time) of his sentence.

On what basis do you assume more than 5 years in prison, will produce lower levels of recidivism in this case?

Rhetorical question obviously, straight from the suppository of wisdom.

 

[SylviaB]

I am going to.

dude, hsc's over

you dont need to talk like this any more

 

[Graney]

The fact that the family is satisfied or unsatisfied bears no weight on the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and should bear no weight either because as you (and Justice Campbell) have highlighted, the law is required to be objective, and how one might feel about the sentence is a subjective matter.

Yeah this. Wtf does aggravating and mitigating factors, have to do with whether the family is satisfied.

It's a non sequitur.

As i hope you are aware, pursuant to s.21a of the crimes (sentencing procedure) act 1999 expresses the requirement to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances proportionately, which has, beyond dispute, not been done. I say 'beyond dispute' because the family is obviously not satisfied, which by default, constitutes an imbalanced consideration of the competing rights.

Do you actually know what's meant by aggravating and mitigating factors?

Have a look at the document funkshen previously linked to, and tell me where it mentions anything to do with the wishes of the victims family:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s21a.html

hell, you shouldn't even need to read that, if you even understand the definition of the words 'aggravating' or 'mitigating' or 'circumstances', it should lead you to wonder how a families wishes could 'aggravate' or 'mitigate' the circumstances of a crime.

 

[wannaspoon]

I guess everything got settled in the end

Guess not...

With all the ranting, age discrimination, pseudo science and pseudo lawyering, etc... I think its time the mods just end this and close the thread...

 

[wannaspoon]

Lol spiritual I suggest you don't mask pseudo-intellectual bullshit under an umbrella of big words. Your claims such as rehabilitation not being possible over 5 years are just baseless statements that you fail to back up with evidence and that one legal quote you used achieved nothing but demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of what it meant.

What guarantees do you have that the present sentence is enough to rehabilitate???

 

[Kiraken]

What guarantees do you have that the present sentence is enough to rehabilitate???

The fact that people have been rehabilitated in the past with that sort of sentence? The fact that the guy was clearly assessed to be remorseful and on top of that had been making an active effort to fix his issues?

Do you really think a longer sentence will be a deterrent for others? Look at the nature of the crime, piss drunk person having nfi what he is doing. You think someome that intoxicated is really going to have the mental capacity to consider that some dude in the past got a 15 or 20 year jail sentence for that crime? And it wont be a deterrent for him, consider who would be more likely to re-offend, a younger man given an opportunity to get his life back on track (as he has expressed his desire to as well as demonstrated via seeking employment etc.) or a disillusioned older man with barely any future prospects. Rehabilitation isn't a matter of just time, there is a psychology and logic to it

 

[Spiritual Bean]

The fact that people have been rehabilitated in the past with that sort of sentence? The fact that the guy was clearly assessed to be remorseful and on top of that had been making an active effort to fix his issues?

Do you really think a longer sentence will be a deterrent for others? Look at the nature of the crime, piss drunk person having nfi what he is doing. You think someome that intoxicated is really going to have the mental capacity to consider that some dude in the past got a 15 or 20 year jail sentence for that crime? And it wont be a deterrent for him, consider who would be more likely to re-offend, a younger man given an opportunity to get his life back on track (as he has expressed his desire to as well as demonstrated via seeking employment etc.) or a disillusioned older man with barely any future prospects. Rehabilitation isn't a matter of just time, there is a psychology and logic to it

Example(s) of the bolded.

Must be a case with similar circumstances.

 

[Kiraken]

Example(s) of the bolded.

Must be a case with similar circumstances.

Norway. Look it up.

The prison sentences are far more lenient yet they have a very low rate of recidivism

 

[wannaspoon]

The fact that people have been rehabilitated in the past with that sort of sentence? The fact that the guy was clearly assessed to be remorseful and on top of that had been making an active effort to fix his issues?

Do you really think a longer sentence will be a deterrent for others? Look at the nature of the crime, piss drunk person having nfi what he is doing. You think someome that intoxicated is really going to have the mental capacity to consider that some dude in the past got a 15 or 20 year jail sentence for that crime? And it wont be a deterrent for him, consider who would be more likely to re-offend, a younger man given an opportunity to get his life back on track (as he has expressed his desire to as well as demonstrated via seeking employment etc.) or a disillusioned older man with barely any future prospects. Rehabilitation isn't a matter of just time, there is a psychology and logic to it

@ your first point: people have wound back in gaol with similar sentences, what is your point... also, I didn't know shrinks moonlighted as fortune tellers to see 5 years into the future...

@ your second point: yes

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Norway. Look it up.

The prison sentences are far more lenient yet they have a very low rate of recidivism

Oh, yeah. I once watched a video about a guy who killed 70 women or something extreme like that, and got 21 years. I'm being 100% serious.

I can't remember if it was 70, but it was extreme.

Because a serial killer can be rehabilitated in 20 years, right?

I'll try to find the vid now.

#norway
#kirakenlogic

 

[Kiraken]

@ your first point: people have wound back in gaol with similar sentences, what is your point... also, I didn't know shrinks moonlighted as fortune tellers to see 5 years into the future...

@ your second point: yes

My point is the judge pointed out a host of reasons why this particular persin was likely to be rehabilitated, I was simply pointing out how this is not an incorrect assumption to make cos it has happened in the past. Furthermore, you underestimate the capability of a potential, being a shrink is a lot mote complex than mere guesswork or speculation

Lol great reply "yes cos I say so"

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Spare me the ad hominems. If its you seriously arguing, it is pathetic. If it is an attempt to troll you're just being boring lol

Wow Kiraken. I expected much more from you. You're so freaking psuedo-intellectual. Really, Norway? REALLY? Do you just take an argument out of your ass?

Man killed 77 people in bloodbath and got 21 years

REALLY? REHABILITATION? Wake up man. You're really not smart.

Oh, yeah. I once watched a video about a guy who killed 70 women or something extreme like that, and got 21 years. I'm being 100% serious.

I can't remember if it was 70, but it was extreme.

Because a serial killer can be rehabilitated in 20 years, right?

I'll try to find the vid now.

#norway
#kirakenlogic

Norway. Look it up.

The prison sentences are far more lenient yet they have a very low rate of recidivism

Example(s) of the bolded.

Must be a case with similar circumstances.

 

[wannaspoon]

Oh, yeah. I once watched a video about a guy who killed 70 women or something extreme like that, and got 21 years. I'm being 100% serious.

I can't remember if it was 70, but it was extreme.

Because a serial killer can be rehabilitated in 20 years, right?

I'll try to find the vid now.

#norway
#kirakenlogic

You're comparing a person with sociopathic tendencies to a person who beat down on a few people and killed one because he was on the piss... very different

 

[Kiraken]

Oh, yeah. I once watched a video about a guy who killed 70 women or something extreme like that, and got 21 years. I'm being 100% serious.

I can't remember if it was 70, but it was extreme.

Because a serial killer can be rehabilitated in 20 years, right?

I'll try to find the vid now.

#norway
#kirakenlogic

Yes show me the part where he does it again or comes out without rehabilitation. Also pointing out one extraordinary case against a greater trend does not in any way justify your argument lol, particularly as kieran loveridge's mentality.is by no means directly comparable to that serial killer, primarily cos manslaughter is not serial killing